A little over two weeks ago, I panned a PolitiFact Florida fact check that found "Mostly False" the claim that one can register to vote without proving citizenship.
Just now I stumbled over a parallel fact check from PolitiFact Wisconsin. Apparently state Rep. Donna Seidel claimed that a new Republican-backed law would allow persons without firearms training to receive a state permit to carry a concealed weapon.
In the Florida case, a person registering to vote needs to sign an affidavit affirming possession of legal citizenship status. That's it. That's the proof requirement unless one registers through the "motor voter" program.
In Wisconsin, the law continues to require firearm training but does not specify the amount of training required. Here's how PolitiFact Wisconsin summarized it:
States typically do one or more of the following: certify the training
organization, their instructors or their courses; mandate specific
topics for training; set a minimum number of hours; require the
instructor to sign the training certificate.
Wisconsin now requires none of those.
The finding? They ruled Seidel's statement "True" without reservation. The justification for the ruling provides an amazing comparison with the reasoning applied by PolitiFact Florida with respect to voter registration:
PolitiFact Wisconsin:
The law is still on the books requiring an instructor-led training
course, but it’s hard to prove that someone skipped it. So the door is
open to "untrained" individuals getting a permit.
Individual supervisors of elections do have the ability to determine if
an applicant is an U.S. citizen, Cate said, though it would be difficult
for a supervisor to ascertain citizenship.
In the former case the difficulty of proving the lack of qualification serves as a key point supporting the Democrat's statement. In the latter case, the difficulty of proving the citizenship of a registered voter is apparently completely ignored as a reason contributing to the truth of the claim.
If a Wisconsin Democrat raises concerns about untrained persons carrying firearms, PolitiFact sees a problem with a soft standard for proving training status.
If a Florida Republican raises concerns about illegal immigrants registering to vote, PolitiFact finds hardly any problem with a comparable standard of proof.
Despite the similarity of the claims and the related set of facts, the Democrat receives a "True" while the Republican receives a "Mostly False" from the Truth-O-Meter.
And doesn't that fit pretty well with the liberal preferences for easy voting and stricter controls on firearms?
Tom Kertscher: writer, researcher
Greg Borowski: editor
Analysis:
MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton made his comments on MSNBC's "Politics Nation," aptly enough. The transcript (yellow highlights indicate the portion quoted in the PolitiFact story):
SHARPTON: Republican politicians throw around budget numbers like
it`s all some abstract game. But they seem to forget their policies have a
devastating impact on real people across the country. In Michigan,
Governor Rick Snyder has signed the law that puts a four-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits. That means next month, nearly 41,000 Michigan
residents will stop getting welfare aid including nearly 30,000 children.
Thousands of innocent impoverished kids, abandoned by the state. In
Arizona, a new republican law punishes the families of prison inmates. To
help deal with the state`s deficit, the state has begun charging $25 to
visit someone in prison. It`s called a quote, "background check fee." But
actually goes for maintenance and repairs.
And in Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker`s budget cuts means, some kids
are going without. One school district is so worried about losing state
funding, that has stopped giving milk to elementary school kids during
snack time. These are the real government of GOP priorities.
Aside from some journalistic impropriety, the quotation presents Sharpton's statement reasonably well.
I'll take a moment to pan the journalists for the presentation of the quotation. PolitiFact lists the MSNBC transcript as the source. The transcript differs from the version of Sharpton's words used by the writer, Tom Kertscher, and passed on to the reader by the editor, Greg Borowski. The PolitiFact Wisconsin version cleans up some faulty grammar, including a missing "it," in the MSNBC transcript. Sharpton may or may not have made his statement the way PolitiFact presented it, but the transcript isn't the source of the quotation if the two differ unless PolitiFact Wisconsin relaxed its stance on the normal journalistic standard for handling quotations.
To assess the truth for a numbers claim, the biggest factor is the underlying message.
--Bill Adair
The issue:
The fact checkers:
Tom Kertscher: writer, researcher
Greg Borowski: editor
Analysis:
This item didn't interest me at first. Usually I know from the subject matter in the title whether I want to fact check the fact checkers. This time I saw the need after starting to read the story just to obtain a sense of it.
"Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined," Moore avowed to tens of thousands of protesters.
PolitiFact continued the quotation of Moore in the subsequent paragraph, but that continuance failed to capture the context that informs us regarding Moore's underlying point. Here's the video, followed by a transcript including the expanded context:
Moore (using Moore's transcript with yellow highlights indicating the portions used by PolitiFact; bold and italicized emphasis in the original):
America is not broke.
Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
Today just 400 Americans have the same wealth as half of all Americans combined.
Let me say that again. 400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have as much loot, stock and property as the assets of 155 million Americans combined. If you can't bring yourself to call that a financial coup d'état, then you are simply not being honest about what you know in your heart to be true.
Moore has at least one underlying point. The most obvious is that 400 people have so much money that it demonstrates that America is not broke. Despite the guidance of PolitiFact's founder, Bill Adair, this fact check will stick with the superficial point rather than the underlying point.
Let's follow the course of Kertscher and Borowski as they continue their literary journey with the guidance system discarded:
Now let’s see if what he asserts -- that 400 Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined" -- is true.
Moore has made other staggering claims about the gap between the nation’s rich and poor. In Capitalism: A Love Story, his 2009 documentary, Moore said "the richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined."
My reaction to the latter paragraph is approximately that of Vicini upon being told a few details about iocaine powder.
PolitiFact goes on to investigate the embedded link in Moore's text version of his speech ("same wealth") and finds that it says that the poorest 50 percent of Americans had a total wealth greater than that of the richest 400. While that's not a good sign, PolitiFact adapted to Moore's presentation of secondary evidence:
We were referred to another item on Moore’s website that was posted two days after the Madison speech. It cites more recent figures, for 2009.
So, let’s start again.
In that item, Moore correctly quoted Forbes, which said in a September 2009 article that the net worth of the nation’s 400 wealthiest Americans was $1.27 trillion.
The second part of Moore’s claim -- that the net worth of half of all Americans is less than that of the Forbes 400 -- is more complicated.
Um--it's really only a one-part claim comparing two numbers, and Moore doesn't specify either number. He's making a simple claim about the relationship between those numbers. But maybe PolitiFact refers to the secondary evidence at Moore's website rather than to his Madison claim. Though that source talks about the poorest 60 percent of all Americans rather than 50 percent of all Americans.
Sure enough, PolitiFact ends up investigating the nuts and bolts of Moore's secondary claim and finds it true. But there's a fairly obvious problem, and it isn't the 10 percentage point difference between 50 percent and 60 percent. It's the difference between "the bottom 60% of households" and "half of all Americans."
Moore's source, economist Edward Wolff of Bard College and New York University, found that the bottom 60 percent of Americans held 2.3 percent of the nation's net worth. Moore applied that figure to the nation's total net worth and ended with $1.22 trillion.
PolitiFact reasoned that $1.22 trillion is a lower figure than the $1.27 trillion Forbes figured in the possessions of the richest 400, and further reasoned that the lowest 50 percent could hardly possess more than the lowest 60 percent.
That reasoning is good, so far as it goes, but it doesn't address the problem with Moore's imprecision. In Madison, Moore did not restrict himself to any particular segment of the U.S. population. He simply said "half of all Americans combined."
Remember back when PolitiFact paid "close attention to the specific wording of a claim"? Those were the days.
Contemporary PolitiFact:
(O)ur assessment indicates that as of 2009, the net worth of the nation’s 400 wealthiest individuals exceeds the net worth of half of all American households.
Ironically, my assessment using the same numbers indicates that as of 2009, the net worth of half of all American households exceeds the net worth of the nation's 400 wealthiest individuals.
How does this apparently contradictory result obtain? Simple. I cherry-pick the half of the American people that Moore didn't cherry-pick. I take the $53.1 trillion total net worth, subtract the total for the half of Americans Moore used ($1.22 trillion) and then subtract the $1.27 trillion for the top 400 just for good measure. I end up with half of American households holding a net worth of over $50 trillion. I then reason that $50 trillion is greater than $1.27 trillion.
A statement that is both true and false at the same time typically fails to qualify as a precise statement. Moore omits important qualifying language in making his claim, and PolitiFact grants him the most favorable pass on his imprecision by completely ignoring it in favor of charitable interpretation.
As I have often emphasized, I am all in favor of charitable interpretation. But the practice must be uniform in the context of fact checking in order to avoid bias, and moreover it is appropriate to let the reader know when applying the principle of charitable interpretation. PolitiFact's statements of standards do not acknowledge the importance of charitable interpretation. They do emphasize the importance of precise phrasing. PolitiFact also claims that it pays very close attention to the particular words used in expressing a claim. Yet that commitment fails to show up in this fact check of Moore. Likewise absent is an emphasis on Moore's underlying point.
The grades:
Tom Kertscher: F
Greg Borowski: F
March 12, 2011: Changed tense in a few sentences to improve consistency.
We examine the claim in the full context, the comments made before and after it, the question that prompted it, and the point the person was trying to make.
--Bill Adair
We always try to get the original statement in its full context rather than an edited form that appeared in news stories.
--About PolitiFact
The issue:
The fact checkers:
James B. Nelson: writer, researcher
Greg Borowski: editor
Analysis:
At first blush, judging from the headline and deck material, this fact check should be a snap. We apparently have an unequivocal statement estimating repair costs for the capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin.
But very quickly we find something curious in this fact check story. We don't have a quotation. No quotation marks in the headline or subsequent deck material. And the body of the story produces no improvement in those results.
What's going on?
Apparently, contrary to PolitiFact's stated methods, this PolitiFact Wisconsin fact check is proceeding based on paraphrases from Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel news accounts.
If there's one saving grace in this disgrace, it's the fact that the Journal-Sentinel happens to serve as the home base for PolitiFact Wisconsin. So James B. Nelson can just shout across the room and ask Don Walker, Jason Stein and/or Bill Glauber to produce their story notes or tape recordings in order to produce a definitive quotation that settles any questions about the nature of the statement he's fact checking.
Unfortunately, we have absolutely no evidence from the story or source list that PolitiFact Wisconsin went to any such great lengths to obtain the truth of the matter in this case. We're stuck with the news accounts until a transcript of the court proceedings, or the like, appears.
Madison - State officials said Thursday that damage to the marble inside and out the State Capitol would cost an estimated $7.5 million.
Cari Anne Renlund, chief legal counsel for the state Department of Administration, said in Dane County court that estimates of damage to marble includes $6 million to repair damaged marble inside the Capitol, $1 million for damage outside and $500,000 for costs to supervise the damage.
The later Journal-Sentinel story, by Stein and Glauber, contained a slightly different account. Or rather, two different accounts that vary from Walker's. First:
Madison - Officials charged with overseeing the state Capitol Friday backpedaled sharply from their estimate - delivered in a high-profile court case only the day before - that demonstrators did more than $7 million in damage to the building and grounds during the tumultuous yet peaceful protests that erupted Feb. 15.
The first one substantially agrees with Walker's account. "(M)ore than $7 million" is a fair way to represent $7.5 million.
Second:
It was Cari Anne Renlund, chief legal counsel for the Department of Administration, who said in court Thursday that costs for a full cleanup and restoration at the Capitol could reach $7.5 million.
"It's important to note that the $7.5 million described yesterday (Thursday) in court was the information I had available to me based upon estimates provided me by the Division of State Facilities," said Michael Huebsch, secretary of the Department of Administration, during a news conference.
That would be Plale's division.
But on Friday, Plale said "I think that's more of a worst-case scenario."
Stick with me.
1) We have another paraphrase of Renlund, this one stating that the cleanup cost "could reach" $7.5 million.
2) "(C)ould reach" is a different claim than "will reach."
3) It's very important in fact checking to have an accurate account of the claim.
Time out:
Our rulings are based on when a statement was made and on the information available at that time.
--Bill Adair
Stick with me again:
4) Huebsch said he got the $7.5 million estimate from the Division of State Facilities.
5) Jeff Plale of the Division of State Facilities calls the $7.5 million estimate "a worst-case scenario."
6) A "worst-case scenario" fits well with high-end estimate that "could reach" $7.5 million (see #1).
This latter section of the Journal-Sentinel story is written as though the facts are contradicting Huebsch and Renlund. But that's only the case if the first paraphrase is the accurate one of the two. And we have no way of knowing if we should rely on that paraphrase over the latter one.
And neither does PolitiFact, based on the list of sources provided. For what it's worth, during Huebsch's Mar. 4 press conference he emphasized that the $7.5 million figure was a high-end estimate, though without making clear how the figure was communicated by Renlund during the court proceedings.
In the end, we can have no fact check without a definitive version of the original statement in its original context. Yet PolitiFact gave us the fact check anyway. As a result, the fact check is a fake and a farce.
The grades:
James B. Nelson: F
Greg Borowski: F
Journalists reporting badly.
Afters:
Something about the news story by Stein and Glauber caught my eye. It was the photo accompanying the story. Isn't it touching the way the protesters carefully used blue masking tape in order to attach their sign to the marble?
Credit is due for using the blue tape. I won't minimize that aspect of the photo. But what caught my eye is the evidence that the sign was originally affixed using duct tape. It's most obvious in the center top of the sign, where the old tape is still attached but folded under the sign. A close examination indicates the same in the upper left hand corner. One may infer that duct tape was also originally used at the top right of the sign.
I wonder what became of the sticky residue?
I just found it ironic that a story containing an emphasis on the supposedly inflated cleanup estimate featured evidence supporting the potential need for expensive restoration, that stemming from the porosity of marble and the damaging effects of adhesive over time.
Mar. 9, 2011: Polished the delivery in a few sentences, and most especially corrected spelling of "attach" in the first paragraph of the "afters" section. I must have spelled it "attack" because of my right-wing affinity for violent rhetoric.
Words matter -- We pay close attention to the specific wording of a claim. Is it a precise statement? Does it contain mitigating words or phrases?
--Bill Adair, PolitiFact
Context matters -- We examine the claim in the full context, the comments made before and after it, the question that prompted it, and the point the person was trying to make.
--Bill Adair, PolitiFact
The issue:
The fact checkers:
Dave Umhoefer: writer, researcher
Greg Borowski: editor
Analysis:
PolitiFact's presentation of this fact check raises an immediate red flag for those who agree with Bill Adair that words matter. The quotation of Gov. Scott Walker includes a parenthetical portion provided by PolitiFact. Those editorial embellishments are customarily intended to assist the reader in understanding the context of the statement. But reporters and editors sometimes fail to accurately convey the context with such interpolations.
PolitiFact examines two associated statements from Walker. In each, we get an accurate idea of Walker's exact words:
1)
A reporter asked if the move to limit union power was payback for pro-union moves made by Democrats in the past.
"It’s not a tit for tat," Walker responded. "The simple matter is I campaigned on this all throughout the election. Anybody who says they are shocked on this has been asleep for the past two years."
2)
Asked if he was "ramming through" the budget-repair bill, Walker said:
"We introduced a measure last week, a measure I ran on during the campaign, a measure I talked about in November during the transition, a measure I talked about in December when we fought off the employee contracts, an idea I talked about in the inauguration, an idea I talked about in the state of the state. If anyone doesn't know what's coming, they've been asleep for the past two years."
And, for review, the PolitiFact paraphrase of Walker's position based on the two quotations above:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he campaigned on his budget repair plan, including curtailing collective bargaining.
PolitiFact described/justified the above framing in the story like so:
There is no dispute that Walker campaigned on getting concessions on health and pension benefits from state employees. And, to be sure, that is an important part of the measure.
But for Walker to be right, he has to be correct on the entirety of the plan. So we’ll look more deeply at the collective bargaining side of the equation, which has caused the ongoing firestorm in Madison.
The key premise in PolitiFact's argument occurs at the start of the second paragraph just above: "(F)or Walker to be right, he has to be correct on the entirety of the plan." That key premise is based, in turn, on PolitiFact's interpretation of Walker's words at two press conferences, one on Feb. 17 and the other on Feb. 21.
Given the critical nature of the respective interpretations, we examine each in turn.
James B. Nelson: writer, researcher
Greg Borowski: editor
Analysis:
Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program on Feb. 17 and weighed in on the Wisconsin governor's run-in with the state's union workers:
"It's not asking a lot, it's still about half of what private sector pensions do and health care packages do. So he's [the Governor is] basically saying, I want you public workers to pay half of what our private sector counterparts and he's getting riots -- it's like Cairo has moved to Madison these days," Rep. Ryan told MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
Here' an example of how PolitiFact editors choose their stories:
Now that warrants a news flash: Riots?
That conjures images of tear gas, broken windows, cracked heads. Is that really happening?
That's how the fact check proceeds. It is assumed that Ryan was saying that the Madison protests were violent, so the fact check involves trying to find examples of violent behavior.
We get a number of contrasts to violent antiwar protests from the American 1960s.
We get highlighting of the fact that there is little tension between the police and Wisconsin protesters (perhaps the police are unionized?).
Finally, PolitiFact asked for a response from Ryan's office:
Puzzled, we called Ryan’s office and asked what he was referring to in his comments about riots and his comparison of a week of Madison protests with 18 days that led to the resignation of the president of Egypt.
Ryan’s response: "It was an inaccurate comparison."
That's right, ladies and gentlemen. The Egyptian protesters were by and large peaceful. The scenes depicting violent behavior come from the riot control folks (police and the like).
Given that Ryan invoked the comparison with Cairo in the immediate context, what is the justification for taking "riot" as literally meaning violent behavior?
There apparently is no such justification, other than taking the literal definition of the word and trying to make Ryan wear it regardless of the context. The similarity to Cairo is sufficient for Ryan to make the comparison. Big crowds turned out to protest the actions of the government (peacefully in both cases). The state hasn't yet used teargas to disperse the crowds, nor have government supporters instigated violent clashes with protesters as happened in Egypt.
Given the explicit comparison to massive protests in Egypt, Ryan's comment ought to have been taken as hyperbole (exaggeration for emphasis) and politically inadvisable because the Wisconsin protesters deliberately tried to invoke the comparison themselves between Walker and Egypt's Mubarak.
The Egyptian protesters were notably repressed. The Madison protesters suffered no comparable harm.
James B. Nelson: writer, researcher
Greg Borowski: editor
Analysis:
How many times has it happened that PolitiFact created a straw man via paraphrase? Whatever the number, the tally increases by one with this story on Sensenbrenner:
The quotation:
"the American voters said no--emphatically."
The paraphrase:
Americans have "emphatically" rejected the federal health care reform bill
Anybody detect a difference? Does "American voters" constitute a different set than "Americans"? Of course it does. Now, the careless paraphrase does not necessarily de-legitimize the fact check unless the fact check proceeds to check the wrong fact. In this case we'll see a mixed set of results.
"The House of Representatives -- and this representative -- has listened to the American people," Sensenbrenner said. "We had a debate on whether ‘ObamaCare' was the way to go to fix up health care and the American voters said no -- emphatically."
Of course, public opinion can be a moving target. And election mandates can grow over time, especially in the eyes of the winners.
So we decided to take a look at Sensenbrenner’s statement, including at what current polls are showing.
Sensenbrenner's statement lends itself most obviously to his interpretation of election results, with the most recent election results occurring in Nov. 2010. Therefore, current polls are not particularly useful in fact checking Sensenbrenner even if we stick with polls referring to "likely voters" or those who voted in the relevant elections.
PolitiFact is again off on the wrong foot and an unbalanced fact check results.
PolitiFact considers a recent Rasmussen poll of likely voters. The poll indicated a slight dip in opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, though a majority (55 percent) still favored repeal and a plurality (40 percent) strongly favored repeal.
PolitiFact's reaction?
On the face of it, 55 percent does not seem "emphatic." Indeed, according to the firm, the percentage strongly favoring repeal has fallen.
Um--according to what objective measure does 55 percent not seem emphatic? Search definitions for "emphatic" and you won't find much in terms of appeal to majoritarianism. PolitiFact's reasoning here seems built on nothing. Emphatic refers to emphasis (note the common root). Forty percent of likely voters strongly favoring repeal is emphasis ("strongly"), and what PolitiFact spins as evidence against Sensenbrenner ("the percentage strongly favoring repeal has fallen") is, in truth, an evidence supporting Sensenbrenner. That's because the emphatic percentage was greater than 40 percent when the votes were being cast. And though that's the number that PolitiFact ought to have investigated, instead we get a set of recent polls not even restricted to likely voters.
It's not a legitimate fact check of Sensenbrenner unless the fact being checked is one Sensenbrenner used.
PoltiFact:
Sensenbrenner said American voters had "emphatically" rejected the federal health reform changes. District residents may have felt that way, though calls to a congressman’s office are hardly scientific -- and Sensenbrenner’s statement cited national opinion on the issue. Also, numerous polls after the November election indicated that voters had one issue foremost in their mind: the economy.
The link connects to a document about a series of AP-GfK polls where some of the data sets apply to likely voters. But the problem is not with the polling but with the PolitiFact interpretation. No poll question compared concern over the economy with the repeal of health care reform in terms of importance--and that would be a silly aim for a poll in the first place. The degree to which likely voters thought the economy was the most important issue is largely irrelevant to the passion attached to the prospect of repealing the health care reform bill. That's because the health care bill gets in the way of economic recovery in the view of many who oppose it. The only truly relevant section of the document simply confirms the data from Rasmussen:
The question for this item was "In general, do you support, oppose or neither support nor oppose the health care reforms that were passed by Congress in March?" The column for "likely voters" has two emphatic groups. One emphatically supports PPACA to the tune of 19 percent of likely voters surveyed. The other, in line with Rasmussen, emphatically opposes the bill and represents 41 percent of likely voters. The emphatically opposed group, in other words, represents a plurality.
Given that a plurality of likely voters near the time of the election emphatically opposed PPACA, and given that emphatic opposition has to do with passion rather than percentage, what type of numbers does Sensenbrenner need to in order to confirm his statement as fact?
When it comes right down to it, Sensenbrenner was offering a subjective judgment based on facts he had observed. The electorate was demonstrative in opposing health care reform. Demonstrative behavior accompanies emphatic feelings. Sensenbrenner's solid there. In addition, the opposition to health care reform was arguably the one issue that most galvanized opposition to the Democratic Party's handling of its leaderhip role in the government. Sensenbrenner has all the justification he needs to say the American voter was emphatic in opposing health care reform.
But is there an underlying argument in play?
Yes, Sensebrenner is justifying the Republican move to repeal the PPACA according to the voter passion that, among other things, helped put a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. PolitiFact appears to argue that if Sensenbrenner does not carry a clear mandate from a supermajority of the American people in general then the push for repeal is not justified. Or at least not justified by the appeal to an "emphatic" set of voters.
Skipping to the end, PolitiFact rated Sensenbrenner "Barely True." How silly.
If Sensenbrenner's statement even entered the realm of the objective to the point of warranting a fact check, he receives more than adequate support through poll data and the election results for the House. House Republicans can certainly justify acting according to the wishes of voters in their districts, and issues where voters were most demonstrative (as with opposition to the health care reform bill) make that justification ridiculously easy and entirely rational. Even if PolitiFact doesn't like it.
The grades:
James B. Nelson: F
Greg Borowski: F
The fact check was ill chosen and ill executed. It was like nailing Jell-O to a wall using Nerf airplanes. This was another case of PolitiFact arbitrarily setting a non-specific arbitrary standard and then ruling that the subject mostly failed to meet that standard.
